I like to think of critique or criticism in these ways:
1.) There is the 'common-sense' understanding of criticism where we identify and correct shortcomings in people or whatever (e.g. 'Oh, you shouldn't have done this or that')
2.) There is a narrower understanding of criticism which we can identify in say, literary criticism, in film reviews, etc, where the critic evaluates or judge something according to certain technical, aesthetic or philosophical criteria.
3.) There is a social understanding and function of criticism such as when a political figure, a lobby group (e.g. Amnesty International), a policy expert, a social or cultural expert (e.g. Noam Chomsky) speaks out against certain issues.
4.) And finally, I think there is another mode of criticism which requires more effort. This involves cultivating a critical sensibility in oneself so as to always re-examine ones thoughts and actions. Criticism in this sense is aimed at clarifying the 'ground' of one's self-understanding and behaviour, so as to go beyond the the 'limits' set on ourselves out of habitual conditioning (or in Buddhist terms, avijja).
One prominent French thinker of the 60s/70s said that critique 'consists in seeing what kinds of self-evidences, liberties, acquired and non reflective-modes of thought, [and] the practices we accept rest on.'
As I understand it, such a mode of criticism is always turning on itself, such that it always holds open the space for change and transformation. To me, this sits well with the Buddhist aim of 'seeing things clearly as they are'.
I think when we ‘criticize’ we move in and out of the above four, depending on the context. But for me, the one mode that is vital to Buddhist practice is (4.). This form of critical attitude, as the Noble Eightfold Path reminds us, must be cultivated alongside ethical conduct. This means that when, how and what we 'criticize' must be considered through the Buddhist teachings of care and compassion.
Respect to all.